[Ietf-not43] Settlements

[Rick Wesson]

Leslie,

On Fri, 8 Nov 2002, Leslie Daigle wrote:

>
> Rick,
>
> [You wrote:]
> >> yes things move faster in a vacuum and what you are seeing here is that
> >> the vacuum is now being filled with participants willing to work on the
> >> issues at hand.
>
>
> I see a vacuum being filled with your spurious accusations
> and frustration that things are not going the way that
> you, personally, understand.

hmmm. I've made about 8 text proposals on the requirements drafts this
month. The archives average about 50 messages a month over the last 6
months and the bulk of those posts are from VeriSign employees, almost
none from the would be "service providers."

I am frustrated with what I perceive as Ted and Andy gate-keeping all the
documents without allowing provision for the service providers to suggest
text. Every one of my requirements proposals can stand on its own merit
and maneuvering to prevent their addition does beg the question of why. I
apologie if this has tured into questioning motives.

What I see is a number of exceptions raised and the draft author, and
chair unwilling to incorporate the requests because the don't fit within
the I-Ds that will implement the requirements. This is MY perception which
is probably wrong, I'm sure some of these issue will make it into the
requirements draft.

I will attempt to re-frame these issues with less finger pointing.

> The other folks from the registrar community who have
> been participating here lately have had the courtesy to
> try to understand what's being proposed.  It would be
> pleasant if you, too, would spend more time understanding
> and helping the rest of us to understand, and less time
> accusing.

I didn't start with accusation, I started with several additions to the
document, the debate has digressed because some vagueness in the charter
and the interpretation of scope, not for technical reasons.

ok, i'll work on less accusation, debate always digresses when VeriSign
(your employer) is involved, it has something to do with trust or lack
thereof. Not of you or Andy or any of the individual employees, its an
industry thing, burned once... you know the story. Its not just me either
it anyone who comes in contact with VeriSign seems feels this.

Steam-rolling this requirements draft and the other CRISP proposals without
the style of outreach VeriSign has done as enumerated in the Appendix B.1
will backfire in a big way. This isn't accusation its my best read of an
industry I've been around for a while.

I've been encouraging registrars to participate and I'm glad some are
starting to show up. Most of them don't read the drafts, they are
more pleasant and spend more time understanding than making comments.

As someone who reads the drafts and has tracked all the crisp drafts for a
while I am going to make more comments and more proposals and expect some
of those proposals to make it into the drafts if they are technicly sound
and address the issues at hand.


> I don't care to see your personal meltdown interfere with
> some very solid, technical work that is being proposed
> and debated thoughtfully here.

"my personal meltdown" sniff, Thats the bets quip anyone has ever sent me
on an ietf list ;-)

My issue is that the service providers have some issues that need to be
addressed in the requirements and/or charter. I'm glad you'll be here to
help see that this is accomplished.

best,

-rick